The U.S. Constitution is NOT an international document

[Reasonable]

You cannot ban people from entering this country based on their religion.

Really? The guy who twice proclaimed that the Justice Department was part of the Judicial branch is going to attempt to tell me about the U.S. Constitution?

You can ban foreigners from entering this country for any reason at all - including for no reason. Foreigners have no right of access to the United States. None.

And not for nothing - but President Trump's Executive Order didn't ban anyone based on religion (which would literally be impossible). The ban was based on region.

Cough cough. Sure. LolKeep telling yourself that while the Muslims in those countries know exactly who the ban is directed at.
And it will create many more terrorists. Don't believe me ?.....listen to an expert.

 

[JQPublic1]

If you Constitutional laymen would take the time to actually read every word in the Constitutional excerpt below, you might , for the first time in your lives, really understand what is being posited:

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"Any person" means all people including tourists, refugees, and even illegals and, ah yes, US citizens.

"Any person" means U.S. citizen, you nitwit. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. Most 5 year olds can figure this out. Why can't you?

Who is saying the US Constitution is an international document? I'm not talking about international matters I am talking about people within the jurisdiction of the USA. Most 5 year olds can't see that but college professors can.
Perhaps you should tell any tourist you meet that he/she has no equal protection under of the law. They will laugh in your face and mark you down as an ignoramus!

 

[P@triot]

Trump campaigned on a Muslim ban.

Barack Obama campaigned on shutting down Guantanamo Bay. How'd that work out?

Barack Obama campaigned on having the most transparent government ever. Instead he delivered the most corrupt, secretive, and scandalous administration ever.

Barack Obama campaigned on "pay as you go" - promising never to add a single cent to the national debt. Instead, he added $10 trillion.

I hate to break it to you - but what President Trump campaigned on is irrelevant. He can campaign on "hanging n*ggers". As long as he doesn't actually do it, the courts have absolutely no grounds to stop him. It doesn't matter what he campaigned on - every single one of his Executive Orders have been 100% constitutional.

Apparently the 9th district court of appeals thought what he campaigned on was very revelant to their decision in blocking this executive order.

Because - as I said - the 9th circuit is a bunch of political activists with an agenda posing as "justices".

 

[P@triot]

And it will create many more terrorists. Don't believe me ?.....listen to an expert.View attachment 118315

Wait.....Bernie Sanders?!? Bernie Sanders is your "expert"?

Here's the thing - are you under the impression that I care what muslims think? Are you under the impression that I'm worried about their claims of what will cause "more terrorists"? I can assure you that I am not. We can kill terrorists a hell of a lot faster than they can recruit, train, and finance terrorists. Eventually they will run out of people to recruit and create the next generation of terrorists.

Don't believe me? Just ask the New York mafia. We didn't even kill them. We prosecuted them (which is agonizingly longer than indiscriminately killing) and they ran out of people. They barely exist any more. Have zero power.

 

[P@triot]

Who is saying the US Constitution is an international document? I'm not talking about international matters I am talking about people within the jurisdiction of the USA.

So you admit it is not an international document yet you can't figure out that it doesn't apply to foreigners?!?

Perhaps you should tell any tourist you meet that he/she has no equal protection under of the law.

Tourists do not have "equal protection under the law". We can hold them indefinitely if we wanted to (just as we have done with terrorists in Gitmo). We choose to extend them certain rights. But we are not legally required to do so.

 

[Reasonable]

And it will create many more terrorists. Don't believe me ?.....listen to an expert.View attachment 118315

Wait.....Bernie Sanders?!? Bernie Sanders is your "expert"?

Here's the thing - are you under the impression that I care what muslims think? Are you under the impression that I'm worried about their claims of what will cause "more terrorists"? I can assure you that I am not. We can kill terrorists a hell of a lot faster than they can recruit, train, and finance terrorists. Eventually they will run out of people to recruit and create the next generation of terrorists.

Don't believe me? Just ask the New York mafia. We didn't even kill them. We prosecuted them (which is agonizingly longer than indiscriminately killing) and they ran out of people. They barely exist any more. Have zero power.

Malala looks like Bernie Sanders? I knew you were a bit touched in the head but now its official. You're loco!
Was the large picture of Malala not big enough for you? Lmao

 

[JQPublic1]

Who is saying the US Constitution is an international document? I'm not talking about international matters I am talking about people within the jurisdiction of the USA.

So you admit it is not an international document yet you can't figure out that it doesn't apply to foreigners?!?

Perhaps you should tell any tourist you meet that he/she has no equal protection under of the law.

Tourists do not have "equal protection under the law". We can hold them indefinitely if we wanted to (just as we have done with terrorists in Gitmo). We choose to extend them certain rights. But we are not legally required to do so.

You are too ignorant to debate with. If we extended aliens rights where is that written? while you are looking in vain for that I will post a Supreme Court ruling that debunks your premise, OK?

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws.

Now if you want to argue with the Supreme Court Decision go right ahead. They made the call. I'm just the messenger. But i hope you realize how foolish you look being such an obstinate knee jerk ignoramus.

 

[my2¢]

I believe I need to clarify my point based on a few reply's to my original posting. I agree with the title of this thread in that the Constitution is not an international document. What I disagree with is the main body of the OP which contends the Constitution pertains to U.S. citizens only within our borders. In particular the "U.S. citizens only" part. From my reading of the Constitution its purpose is to put restriction on the government and those restrictions apply regardless of who the government goes after. For sake of example, in a criminal murder trial the proceedings of the trial are independent of whether the suspect is American or not. As the 5th amendment says about the allowed action of government:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

I contend that within our borders those limits on the government are applied the same regardless of citizenship of the person on trial.

 

[JQPublic1]

Who is saying the US Constitution is an international document? I'm not talking about international matters I am talking about people within the jurisdiction of the USA.

So you admit it is not an international document yet you can't figure out that it doesn't apply to foreigners?!?

Perhaps you should tell any tourist you meet that he/she has no equal protection under of the law.

Tourists do not have "equal protection under the law". We can hold them indefinitely if we wanted to (just as we have done with terrorists in Gitmo). We choose to extend them certain rights. But we are not legally required to do so.

The US Constitution applies to foreigners within US jurisdiction. just as we are subject to the laws of other nations when we travel abroad. We don't deport non citizens who commit serious crimes here. we give them due process and, if convicted, we incarcerate them just as their home country would do to a US citizen who is convicted of a felony in their country.

Tourists are non combatants and enjoy all the due process rights other noncitizens living here do.
I have already posted a case history to support my premise.

 

[JQPublic1]

I believe I need to clarify my point based on a few reply's to my original posting. I agree with the title of this thread in that the Constitution is not an international document. What I disagree with is the main body of the OP which contends the Constitution pertains to U.S. citizens only within our borders. In particular the "U.S. citizens only" part. From my reading of the Constitution its purpose is to put restriction on the government and those restrictions apply regardless of who the government goes after. For sake of example, in a criminal murder trial the proceedings of the trial are independent of whether the suspect is American or not. As the 5th amendment says about the allowed action of government:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

I contend that within our borders those limits on the government are applied the same regardless of citizenship of the person on trial.

I agree with everything you said But I would substitute the word "boundaries" for the clause "within US jurisdiction.

 

[P@triot]

Malala looks like Bernie Sanders? I knew you were a bit touched in the head but now its official. You're loco!
Was the large picture of Malala not big enough for you? Lmao

Ah...my bad. I forgot you toddler-like snowflakes on the left can't read. You can only look at pictures. See son - at the bottom of the picture it says "Bernie Sanders". You know, that decrepit old socialist idiot who never held his first job until he was in his 40's. It was a meme from his campaign and it was designed to convince the mindless sheep (such as yourself) to cower to the muslim religion. Clearly it worked.

 

[P@triot]

The US Constitution applies to foreigners within US jurisdiction.

Ohhhhh.....my bad. So when foreigners are on U.S. soil, they can vote? Because you absolutely have a constitutional right to vote that nobody can prevent. And you just clearly stated (and I quote) "The US Constitution applies to foreigners within US jurisdiction".

Game. Over.

 

[P@triot]

You are too ignorant to debate with. If we extended aliens rights where is that written? while you are looking in vain for that I will post a Supreme Court ruling that debunks your premise, OK?

Boom! Game over. See - here's the thing snowflake - I never mentioned the Supreme Court or their rulings. I said the U.S. Constitution. You have to point to the Supreme Court because the U.S. Constitution supports exactly what I said. Which is as idiotic as pointing to a baseball game to "prove" that Deion Sanders wasn't the greatest CB in football history.

By the way - since you love the Supreme Court so much - here they are completely disagreeing with you in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez. Please note how they were "inside of the United States". Oops...

Application of the rights spelled out in the Constitution was dealt a major setback in 1990, when the court ruled that a Mexican national who was being held prisoner inside the United States had no Fourth Amendment right to challenge a search of his home in Mexico by a joint investigative team from the two countries. That ruling, in the case of United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, overturned a federal appeals court ruling that the Mexican’s right to privacy had been violated because the search was made without a warrant.

 

[oreo]

Trump campaigned on a Muslim ban.

Barack Obama campaigned on shutting down Guantanamo Bay. How'd that work out?

Barack Obama campaigned on having the most transparent government ever. Instead he delivered the most corrupt, secretive, and scandalous administration ever.

Barack Obama campaigned on "pay as you go" - promising never to add a single cent to the national debt. Instead, he added $10 trillion.

I hate to break it to you - but what President Trump campaigned on is irrelevant. He can campaign on "hanging n*ggers". As long as he doesn't actually do it, the courts have absolutely no grounds to stop him. It doesn't matter what he campaigned on - every single one of his Executive Orders have been 100% constitutional.

Apparently the 9th district court of appeals thought what he campaigned on was very revelant to their decision in blocking this executive order.

Because - as I said - the 9th circuit is a bunch of political activists with an agenda posing as "justices".

It doesn't matter what your opinion of the 9th district court is, that was their opinion and the reason they steam rolled the 1st executive order. Now this Hawaii judge has stopped it, citing the same reasons as the 9th. (A percieved Muslim ban.)

"Though the judges declined to express a view on those issues, they noted that numerous statements by Trump promising a “Muslim ban,” and similar remarks that go beyond the letter of the executive order, could be used for weighing the order’s constitutionality at a later stage."
Appeals Court Deals New Blow To Donald Trump's Travel Ban Targeting Muslims | The Huffington Post

 

[JQPublic1]

The US Constitution applies to foreigners within US jurisdiction.

Ohhhhh.....my bad. So when foreigners are on U.S. soil, they can vote? Because you absolutely have a constitutional right to vote that nobody can prevent. And you just clearly stated (and I quote) "The US Constitution applies to foreigners within US jurisdiction".

Game. Over.

No, there's no game at all. Voting rights do not apply to foreigners but due process rights do per the Constitution. Those aren't my words, those are the words in a majority decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that I cited.

 

[oreo]

The US Constitution applies to foreigners within US jurisdiction.

Ohhhhh.....my bad. So when foreigners are on U.S. soil, they can vote? Because you absolutely have a constitutional right to vote that nobody can prevent. And you just clearly stated (and I quote) "The US Constitution applies to foreigners within US jurisdiction".

Game. Over.

No, there's no game at all. Voting rights do not apply to foreigners but due process rights do per the Constitution. Those aren't my words, those are the words in a majority decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that I cited.

Agreed--we have all these cough-cough Constitutional experts from the Reich wing on this board--that clearly didn't understand the Establishment clause in the U.S. Constitution, and they don't know about the Emoluments clause either. They'll find out about the Emoluments clause when Democrats take over in 2018-LOL
The Emoluments Clause: Its text, meaning, and application to Donald J. Trump | Brookings Institution

 

[JQPublic1]

You are too ignorant to debate with. If we extended aliens rights where is that written? while you are looking in vain for that I will post a Supreme Court ruling that debunks your premise, OK?

Boom! Game over. See - here's the thing snowflake - I never mentioned the Supreme Court or their rulings. I said the U.S. Constitution. You have to point to the Supreme Court because the U.S. Constitution supports exactly what I said. Which is as idiotic as pointing to a baseball game to "prove" that Deion Sanders wasn't the greatest CB in football history.

By the way - since you love the Supreme Court so much - here they are completely disagreeing with you in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez. Please note how they were "inside of the United States". Oops...

Application of the rights spelled out in the Constitution was dealt a major setback in 1990, when the court ruled that a Mexican national who was being held prisoner inside the United States had no Fourth Amendment right to challenge a search of his home in Mexico by a joint investigative team from the two countries. That ruling, in the case of United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, overturned a federal appeals court ruling that the Mexican’s right to privacy had been violated because the search was made without a warrant.

I'm familiar with that case. I. Also knew that if a school kid like you found it you would not read the entire decision. You ignore many of the pertinent facts. SCOTUS acknowledged the defendant's rights to due process via the 5th and 6th amendments but rejected his claim for rights under the 4th amendment.
Here we see the alien defendant was indeed granted limited Constitutional rights by one set of SC justices who overturned a previous court decision granting more Constitutional protections. Considering also the convictions of drug trafficking and the murder of a DEA agent assigned to him, evidence to substantiate those convictions was obtained from his residences in Mexico with full cooperation of Mexican authorities.
The example you use here is an unusual one involving an extradited criminal whose exploits had deleterious effects upon the USA. But keep in mind that as a prisoner and ward of US taxpayers on American soil, his trial, his conviction and his incarceration was done under governance of our Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

It doesn't matter what your opinion of the 9th district court is, that was their opinion and the reason they steam rolled the 1st executive order. Now this Hawaii judge has stopped it, citing the same reasons as the 9th. (A percieved Muslim ban.)

Key word: perceived (and only by left-wingers). It doesn't matter what the unlawful opinion of the 9th circuit court is. The Supreme Court will over rule them. Trump's Executive Order is 100% legal in every way. Trying to rule it illegal based on his campaign - before he was even president - is completely irrational.

 

[P@triot]

I'm familiar with that case.

Bwahahahahaha! Sure you are, snowflake. I've got $10 right here and now that says you're not familiar with any Supreme Court case. You just last-second Google like a typical left-winger.

I. Also knew that if a school kid like you found it you would not read the entire decision. You ignore many of the pertinent facts. SCOTUS acknowledged the defendant's rights to due process via the 5th and 6th amendments but rejected his claim for rights under the 4th amendment.

And can the Supreme Court deny a person a portion of their constitutional rights? Can they snowflake? Come on...you can say....we all know the answer already.

NO! No, they can't! You cannot be denied ANY part of your constitutional rights! So clearly we see that foreigners do not have any constitutional rights and that we voluntarily extend them some by choice - but are not required by the U.S. Constitution to do so.

 

[JQPublic1]

I'm familiar with that case.

Bwahahahahaha! Sure you are, snowflake. I've got $10 right here and now that says you're not familiar with any Supreme Court case. You just last-second Google like a typical left-winger.

I. Also knew that if a school kid like you found it you would not read the entire decision. You ignore many of the pertinent facts. SCOTUS acknowledged the defendant's rights to due process via the 5th and 6th amendments but rejected his claim for rights under the 4th amendment.

And can the Supreme Court deny a person a portion of their constitutional rights? Can they snowflake? Come on...you can say....we all know the answer already.

NO! No, they can't! You cannot be denied ANY part of your constitutional rights! So clearly we see that foreigners do not have any constitutional rights and that we voluntarily extend them some by choice - but are not required by the U.S. Constitution to do so.

Send that $10 to an American citizen who lost many rights when he/she was incarcerated in a penal institution. Foreigners who live here under any circumstances enjoy more Constitutional freedoms than American prisoners. But don't confuse Constitutional rights with the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Women couldn't vote until 1920. And some states barred Native Americans from voting as late as 1957. Will you acknowledge that piece of history as an answer to your query as to whether the Supreme Court can deny a person a portion of their Constitutional rights? Yet, women were equally protected under the law. When I refer to aliens as having Constitutional rights within the boundaries of US jurisdictions I am recalling the era when not all upstanding US citizens, even some born here, were fully covered by the US Constitution.Yet all were, ostensibly guaranteed equal protection of the law. Deny the ramifications of that all you want, court precedence has validated limited Constitutional protections for non citizens. Illegal immigrants are further subject to immigration laws in that those having no involvement in criminal activity, other than being here illegally, can be identified, processed and deported.

The Supreme Court;s interpretation of the Constitution weighs more heavily than the actual wording within.